2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�Dt1011S' The City Council may - by verbal motion -- move to 1. rove the recommendation of the Ethics Commission and dismiss the March 26 ethics complaint of Richard Lambert against Mayor John Kysylyczyn. 2. Modifv the recommendations of the Ethics Commission in some respect, such as by dismissing the complaint but issue some form of censure or counseling letter to the subject of the complaint. 3. Reject the recommendations of the Ethics Commission and take some action other than dismissal of the complaint. For example, the City Council could remand the complaint back to the Ethics Commission for further investigation of some aspect of the complaint. Furthermore, the City Council could reverse the Ethics Commission. This result requires a finding by the City Council that the Ethics Commission abused its discretion and that the record hefore the Commission clearly supports a conclusion that the Respondent has committed an ethics violation. Consistent with this option, the Council would have to formally find that the Respondent has violated a specific section or sections of the Ethics Resolution, and the Council could explore some further disciplinary proceeding or criminal investigation as to that violation. In addition, Section 5(a) of Resolution 8593 seems to indicate that the City Council may take "no action" respecting the Report and Recommendation of the Ethics Commission. That section says Results of the investigation of the Ethics Commission shall be reported to the City Council along with the Commission's recommendation for disposition. Thereafter, the City Council shall take appropriate action that may include censure of a Council Member, discipline of City Manager, or no action. Of course, if the Council wishes to take no action, no motion is necessary. It is uncertain what effect the absence of Council action has on the status of the complaint.